Appeal No. 2002-2198 Page 8
Application No. 09/408,409
between the implants and adjacent bone thereby forming a sealed enclosure.2 Thus,
the claimed subject matter is not a necessary consequence of what was disclosed by
Kwong.
Since the claimed limitation that the prosthetic component include a non-bone-
interfacing rough surface on the peripheral side faces of the platform is not disclosed in
Kwong for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2
to 14 and 19 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
2 No rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings and suggestions of Kwong is before
us in this appeal. When obviousness is based on a single prior art reference there must be a showing of a
suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference to arrive at the claimed invention. See
In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007